On the basis of one anonymous phone call (that later appeared to be a hoax), Texas authorities forcibly removed more than 460 children from their parents without evidence of actual abuse in each case. Parents and children were ordered to undergo DNA testing (Who knows how long the state will maintain the DNA database, or to what uses it will be put?), and the children were summarily consigned to the notorious Texas foster-care system. They were subsequently reunited with their parents on order of Texas courts, which rightly held that the state had acted unlawfully, but who knows how much damage was done?

<quoted text>I donít need to prove it, it was already proved by the people that removed them, go do your own research, I donít report to you.I am not ordering you do to anything, I am suggesting you actually take up the cause, or stop your incessant whiningposting in a forum whining that you donít have poly marriage wonít do anything for you, zip.... nada.Supporters of same sex marriage organized, brought lawyers to bear on civil action and are making progress.You have nothing.. and you do nothing but whine and cry and complain that someone else doesnít take up your cause for you.well screw you kiddo, you want something done... go do it. Donít whine around here for others to do it for you, we arenít into the kind of welfare you are asking for.I am already educated on the subject, you donít seem to know anything at all. You donít even comprehend the image problem your pet cause has, so.... the way to teach you is to have you go out and get the signatures, after a couple of weeks of that, you just might be aware that you have an image problem.

Of course, Iím not suggesting that any parent have a religious right to harm their children by denying them medical care, subjecting them to sexual molestation, or otherwise abusing them. Iím simply pointing out that the state should not abuse the power to prosecute people or forcibly remove their children because authorities donít approve of their ďlifestyle.Ē Gay men were once routinely suspected of being pedophiles, a suspicion that persists today but with considerably less prevalence and respectability. Indeed, opposition to gay marriage still relies on specious arguments about the harm it poses to children. Some fools still compare homosexuality to bestiality, just as the Supreme Court once compared polygamy to human sacrifice. We progress when we base the extension of rights on reason, not bias or judicial hyperbole.

The outlook for polygamy hasn't been this good since Abraham took Keturah as his third wife.

Plural marriage remains illegal, but it's undergoing an image upgrade as a result of television shows like HBO's "Big Love" and TLC's "Sister Wives." More significantly, it's getting a legal boost from a strange bedfellow: the success of same-sex marriage.

Gay-rights advocates cringe whenever the connection is made between same-sex and plural marriage, but more than a few legal analysts say the recent gains posted by gay marriage in the courts and state legislatures cannot help but bolster the case for legalized polygamy.

The federal government and most states define marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. If marriage is redefined to include two people of the same sex, the argument goes, then it can be redefined to include more than two people.

Critics reject the polygamy comparison, arguing that marriage's definition as a union of two people remains inviolable. They also dismiss the specter of legalized polygamy as a scare tactic used by the traditional-marriage camp to chill public support for same-sex marriage.

Claiming much deeper roots in human society than gay marriage, plural marriage has been practiced for centuries in nations and cultures across the globe and has ties to both Christianity and Islam. Same-sex marriage is a recent phenomenon confined to the secular West.

"Unlike same-sex marriage, which has no historical roots and is a new frontier ó you can't say the same thing about polygamy," said Austin Nimocks, attorney for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes same-sex marriage. "There's a cultural underpinning and support for plural marriage, so one could say the case is actually stronger for plural marriage."

Wayne McCormack, dean of the University of Utah law school, predicted a pro-polygamy legal challenge based on recent court decisions in favor of same-sex marriage is all but inevitable. Five states and the District of Columbia now recognize gay marriage.

"I don't have any doubt we'll see it," said Mr. McCormack. "It's going to play out after same-sex marriage is resolved, but we're going to get new cases."

He pointed to a case now before a Canadian judge testing the national ban on polygamy. British Columbia Chief Justice Robert Bauman is expected to rule later this year on whether anti-polygamy laws violate Canada's constitution. Canada legalized same-sex marriage in 2005.

"What the Canadian court is looking at is whether restrictions against polygamy are a denial of personal liberty," said Mr. McCormack. "They're using the same arguments that we see used here to support gay marriage."

If U.S. courts do eventually legalize plural marriage, there's an excellent chance that the attorney for the plaintiffs will be Brian Barnard,, he has been challenging anti-polygamy laws for decades.

"We haven't been successful, but we think the times are a-coming," said Mr. Barnard, who serves as legal director for the Utah Civil Rights and Liberties Foundation.At the same time, he said, it won't just happen automatically if and when gay marriage becomes the law of the land. Unlike Canadian courts, which can take up constitutional questions without being presented with a case, the pro-polygamy side will need a case, and so far that's been the problem.

Eight years ago, Mr. Barnard brought a case on behalf of a man and woman who were denied a marriage license because he was already married. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their claim

<quoted text>"I don't need to prove it." Yes you do, when you accuse people of crimes, the burden of proof is on you.The government dropped the case due to lack of evidence and returned the traumatized children to their loving biological parents. Oprah went there and declared it cool. Oprah approved! What the hell more do you want bigot?The government could have gone in a seized the real criminals, instead they arrested everybody and put their children in the notorious Texas child care system. Nice! But you don't care.

I have net accused anyone of any crimes at all, they were accused ( and convicted ) by the courts. I am just making you aware of it as you seem totally ignorant of the event.

I am not the law ( or Judge Dred )

I donít know why they did it in the order that they did, but I can assume their first concern was to remove the children from a real an imminent threat. Go talk to themÖ that is who you have an issue with. Whining and crying on a forum here will get you nowhere, you have an issue with itÖ go do something about it.

I think we are getting to the base of your desire for polygamy, here you are defending the convicted criminals now.

Same-sex marriages give polygamy a legal boostBy Valerie Richardson-The Washington Times Sunday, March 20, 2011The outlook for polygamy hasn't been this good since Abraham took Keturah as his third wife.Plural marriage remains illegal, but it's undergoing an image upgrade as a result of television shows like HBO's "Big Love" and TLC's "Sister Wives." More significantly, it's getting a legal boost from a strange bedfellow: the success of same-sex marriage.Gay-rights advocates cringe whenever the connection is made between same-sex and plural marriage, but more than a few legal analysts say the recent gains posted by gay marriage in the courts and state legislatures cannot help but bolster the case for legalized polygamy.The federal government and most states define marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. If marriage is redefined to include two people of the same sex, the argument goes, then it can be redefined to include more than two people.Critics reject the polygamy comparison, arguing that marriage's definition as a union of two people remains inviolable. They also dismiss the specter of legalized polygamy as a scare tactic used by the traditional-marriage camp to chill public support for same-sex marriage.Claiming much deeper roots in human society than gay marriage, plural marriage has been practiced for centuries in nations and cultures across the globe and has ties to both Christianity and Islam. Same-sex marriage is a recent phenomenon confined to the secular West."Unlike same-sex marriage, which has no historical roots and is a new frontier ó you can't say the same thing about polygamy," said Austin Nimocks, attorney for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes same-sex marriage. "There's a cultural underpinning and support for plural marriage, so one could say the case is actually stronger for plural marriage."Wayne McCormack, dean of the University of Utah law school, predicted a pro-polygamy legal challenge based on recent court decisions in favor of same-sex marriage is all but inevitable. Five states and the District of Columbia now recognize gay marriage."I don't have any doubt we'll see it," said Mr. McCormack. "It's going to play out after same-sex marriage is resolved, but we're going to get new cases."He pointed to a case now before a Canadian judge testing the national ban on polygamy. British Columbia Chief Justice Robert Bauman is expected to rule later this year on whether anti-polygamy laws violate Canada's constitution. Canada legalized same-sex marriage in 2005."What the Canadian court is looking at is whether restrictions against polygamy are a denial of personal liberty," said Mr. McCormack. "They're using the same arguments that we see used here to support gay marriage."If U.S. courts do eventually legalize plural marriage, there's an excellent chance that the attorney for the plaintiffs will be Brian Barnard,, he has been challenging anti-polygamy laws for decades."We haven't been successful, but we think the times are a-coming," said Mr. Barnard, who serves as legal director for the Utah Civil Rights and Liberties Foundation.At the same time, he said, it won't just happen automatically if and when gay marriage becomes the law of the land. Unlike Canadian courts, which can take up constitutional questions without being presented with a case, the pro-polygamy side will need a case, and so far that's been the problem.Eight years ago, Mr. Barnard brought a case on behalf of a man and woman who were denied a marriage license because he was already married. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their claimhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/...

It might if anyone would take any action with it.... but no one seems to be.

<quoted text>I have net accused anyone of any crimes at all, they were accused ( and convicted ) by the courts. I am just making you aware of it as you seem totally ignorant of the event.I am not the law ( or Judge Dred )I donít know why they did it in the order that they did, but I can assume their first concern was to remove the children from a real an imminent threat. Go talk to themÖ that is who you have an issue with. Whining and crying on a forum here will get you nowhere, you have an issue with itÖ go do something about it.I think we are getting to the base of your desire for polygamy, here you are defending the convicted criminals now.

How many of the 460 children's parents were convicted jackass? Come on, you're the expert and I know nothing. Tell us. How many?

<quoted text>I have net accused anyone of any crimes at all, they were accused ( and convicted ) by the courts. I am just making you aware of it as you seem totally ignorant of the event....

On May 22, 2008 an appeals court ruled there was not enough evidence at the original hearing that the children were in immediate danger to justify keeping them in state custody. The court added that Judge Walther had abused her discretion by keeping the children in state care. The court ruled, "The department did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health and safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty."[52] The children were to be returned to their families in 10 days. CPS announced they would seek to overturn the decision.[53] On May 29, the Texas Supreme Court declined to issue a mandamus to the Appeals Court, with a result that CPS must return all of the children. The court stated,ďOn the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted.Ē[54] The court also noted that although the children must be returned, "it need not do so without granting other appropriate relief to protect the children."[55]

Mental health workers who worked at the shelter testified similarly to state officials, also citing lack of privacy, only military cots for sleeping and poor-quality food, with no communications and threatened arrest if mothers waved to friends. "The CPS workers were openly rude to the mothers and children, yelled at them for trying to wave to friends... threatened them with arrest if they did not stop waving"[85] Workers took notes on everything the "guests" said. In many of the testimonies it was compared it to a prison or concentration camp.

<quoted text>Four men were rightfully convicted of despicable crimes.Jeffry Dahmer was rightfully convicted of despicable crimes. Should we outlaw gay marriage?

and here is why you talk about polygamy, how you can relate that to not allowing gay marriage.

Jeffery Dhamer was not involved in a same sex marriage, he didnít use same sex marriage as the "excuse" for his crimes, he is not the face of same sex marriage, never was. In the minds of voters he is just a criminal and has nothing to do whatsoever with same sex marriage.

Not true for your personal hero Warren Jeffs, he IS the public face of polygamy, I donít think he should be, but he is in the minds of a large number of voters. If you would just go out and get your signatures you might realize that.

<quoted text>and here is why you talk about polygamy, how you can relate that to not allowing gay marriage.Jeffery Dhamer was not involved in a same sex marriage, he didnít use same sex marriage as the "excuse" for his crimes, he is not the face of same sex marriage, never was. In the minds of voters he is just a criminal and has nothing to do whatsoever with same sex marriage.Not true for your personal hero Warren Jeffs, he IS the public face of polygamy, I donít think he should be, but he is in the minds of a large number of voters. If you would just go out and get your signatures you might realize that.

No one used polygamy as an excuse for crimes. No matter how you spin it, there is no reason for same sex or poly marriage to be unlawful.

We have perfectly good laws against all the crimes your ignorance can conjure up. Some people in marriages abuse their spouses. Do we ban marriage?

One of the links I submitted and you ignored because you already know everything and I am stupid was of a happy family of 3 men and their 6 children. Are they child molesters too? Should CPS seize their children too?

<quoted text>and here is why you talk about polygamy, how you can relate that to not allowing gay marriage.Jeffery Dhamer was not involved in a same sex marriage, he didnít use same sex marriage as the "excuse" for his crimes, he is not the face of same sex marriage, never was. In the minds of voters he is just a criminal and has nothing to do whatsoever with same sex marriage.Not true for your personal hero Warren Jeffs, he IS the public face of polygamy, I donít think he should be, but he is in the minds of a large number of voters. If you would just go out and get your signatures you might realize that.

There are many Islamic polygamists around the world. Many more than Christian.

Does that give polygamy a bad image in your world too? I guess so.

So far your argument seems to be polygamists are bad. And I should go out and gather signatures because no one cares except they hate it because of the ugly "face of polygamy" or something.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.